Upload
mary-gonzalez
View
224
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/8/2019 Healthy CO Community
1/30
NELSON DIARTEMARY GONZALEZ
MEGAN WRIGHT
EVALUATION OF THE COLORADOHEALTHY COMMUNITIES INITIATIVE
AN INTERVIEWWITHROSS CONNER
8/8/2019 Healthy CO Community
2/30
Ross Conner
y Received his Ph.D. and M.A.degrees in social psychology andevaluation from NorthwesternUniversity USA and his B.A. inpsychology from The Johns
Hopkins University USA
y Faculty of the University ofCalifornia at Irvine
y Founder & Director of the Center
for Community Health Research inthe School of Social Ecology
y President of the Board of Trusteesof the International Organizationfor Cooperation in Evaluation
8/8/2019 Healthy CO Community
3/30
Ross Conner cont.
y Cancer control Chinese &Korean communities insouth California
y Assessment & strategicreview of CA EndowmentsCommunity First grantprogram
y Author & Co-author of 9books, numerous papers &articles
y Received the AmericanEvaluation Association 02Outstanding Evaluation
Award for his work withCHCI
http://socialecology.uci.edu/faculty/rfconner
8/8/2019 Healthy CO Community
4/30
Colorado Healthy Community Initiative (CHCI)
y Mission: Help communities find their ownsolutions using local, broad participation,
consensus decision making, a broad definition ofhealth and capacity building
8/8/2019 Healthy CO Community
5/30
CHCI Description Program Background
y The program began as a result of work conducted bythe Colorado Trust
y The study examined demographic, social & economictrends and results from focus groups with citizen andleaders around the state
y The study found that Coloradans were not participating
in decisions that affect their community & their future
y Colorado Trust created CHCI and allocated money forfive and later eight years efforts
8/8/2019 Healthy CO Community
6/30
Target Communities
y CHCI involved 29 communities
y 28 completed planning phase, 27 completed
implementation phase
y There was a great deal of diversity
Geographic size
Urban vs. Rural Population
Ethnic/race groups
Incomes
8/8/2019 Healthy CO Community
7/30
Challenges to evaluators
y Determining how to evaluate an initiative thatdiffered in each community
y
Conner & team conducted the evaluation in a waythat was congruent with principles and goals ofCHCI
y They focused on describing & telling story of each
community
y Processes & immediate outcomes provided thedraft model for the evaluation efforts
8/8/2019 Healthy CO Community
8/30
Selection of Evaluation Model
y Conner & team developed a model where citizenswere central actors to establish goals & objectives,and to implement the project
y The model was an adaptation of the National CivicLeagues approach to healthy communities
y
The project begun in 1992. Each community wasinvolved in strategic planning followed by actionproject implementation
8/8/2019 Healthy CO Community
9/30
Goals and Activities
y The initiative used traditional and nontraditionalmethods
To track the CHCI programs in individual communities
To identify short-term outcomes for participants and for theproject
To investigate longer-term outcomes on the communities
8/8/2019 Healthy CO Community
10/30
Goals and Activities cont
y In-depth case studies
y Comparison case studies
y Stakeholders surveys
y Interview with community leaders
y Community-based indicators
y Implementation progress reports
8/8/2019 Healthy CO Community
11/30
Goals and Activities cont
y There was never a program that was instituted
y The evaluation team was creating and adjusting theevaluation design to capture the main processes
within each communities, across communities andacross time
8/8/2019 Healthy CO Community
12/30
Phases of the Evaluation
y Strategic planning phase: occurred over 15 to 18months
y
Action-focus implementation phase: lasted from 2to 3 years
y Indicators were introduced midway in the majorityof the communities
8/8/2019 Healthy CO Community
13/30
Outcomes from Planning Phase
y Citizens came and stayed together
y Stakeholders thought broadly about health
y Community groups moved from ideas to proposedactions
y Community groups increased skills and abilities toaccomplish community work
8/8/2019 Healthy CO Community
14/30
Outcomes from Planning Phase
y At individual level: stakeholders increased abilitiesto understand community problems, collaboratedand took active roles
y At group level: stakeholders obtained support ofpowerful community leaders to lay foundations for
future works
8/8/2019 Healthy CO Community
15/30
Outcomes from Implementation Phase
y Groups maintained broad & active partnershipwith diverse sectors of communities
y Partnership varied from informal cooperation &coordination to formal coalitions & collaborations
8/8/2019 Healthy CO Community
16/30
Outcomes from Implementation Phase
y CHCI projects not only undertook proposed originalactivities but also took new opportunities that arosefrom new partnership
y Outcomes ranged from issue-focused to communitydevelopment-focused outcomes
Creation of a new family resource center (issue-focused)
Citizens participated in important community decision makingbodies causing significant policy changes (communitydevelopment-focused)
8/8/2019 Healthy CO Community
17/30
Unanticipated Outcomes
y During planning phase a coalition was formed, thiseventually grew into an independent organization:Colorado Center for Healthy Communities
y Communities developed individualized-basedindicators. These allowed communities to track
progress toward achieving their vision.
8/8/2019 Healthy CO Community
18/30
Overall outcome/Value of the evaluation
y Colorado Trust was able to affect the waycommunities went about decision making andproblem solving.
y CHCI was able to provide stakeholders with abroader, deeper understanding of therequirements, opportunities, and realities
associated with promoting community health.
8/8/2019 Healthy CO Community
19/30
Connections to Course materials
y Models used
Mixed method study design as illustrated bycomparative case studies
yA mix of activities were used to gather data
Qualitative and Quantitative data collection andanalysis methods
8/8/2019 Healthy CO Community
20/30
Connections to Course materials
y KEC II. Preface
Evaluation was asked by Colorado Trust
y KEC III. Methodology
The design blended traditional and nontraditionalmethods
8/8/2019 Healthy CO Community
21/30
Connections to Course materials
y KEC 1. Background and Context
CHCI wanted to contribute to change, not solelycausing it
y KEC 2 & 3 Descriptions & Definitions andConsumers
29 communities, 28 completed planning phase & 27completed implementation phase
8/8/2019 Healthy CO Community
22/30
Connections to Course materials
y KEC 4. Resources
Colorado Trust allocated enough money for the firstfive years initiative as well as for continuing three
more years
y KEC 5. Values
Individual and groups in the communities developedhelp develop their own evaluation criteria with thehelp of the practitioners
8/8/2019 Healthy CO Community
23/30
Connections to Course materials
y KEC 6. Process Evaluation
Evaluation design and delivery were suitable for thistype of initiative
y KEC 7. Outcome Evaluation
Individual and groups in the communities developedskills, set standards, developed indicators and raisedtheir self esteem
8/8/2019 Healthy CO Community
24/30
Connections to Course materials
y KEC 8 & 9. Cost Effectiveness
Conner expended few resources as possible on theevaluation component. Evaluative aspects reflected
on spending more resources in the early stages of theproject.
y KEC 10. Exportability
Evaluation was recognized because its success in
addressing methodological challenges
8/8/2019 Healthy CO Community
25/30
Connections to Course materials
y KEC 11 15 Conclusions
Conner role as facilitator and teacher brought in
different set of skillsResearch assistants were deeply involved in design,
implementation and reporting as well as balancingparticipation and persuasion
This type of project was difficult to evaluate
8/8/2019 Healthy CO Community
26/30
Connections to Course Materials
y Unit 3 evaluative models- Comparative Case Studiesand Constructivist Model presented by Wright,Gonzalez and Jarvis
y Logic Models used in Program Planning andProgram Implementation- page 278 article and Unit5 in course materials
8/8/2019 Healthy CO Community
27/30
8/8/2019 Healthy CO Community
28/30
Future Considerations
y Updated data or similar data sets for comparisonsshould be obtained along with bench marks alongthe way
y Devoting more resources to the short term outcomesin communities based evaluations
y The evaluator "wears many hats" and must be readyto change
y The evaluative process must be responsive and nothighly structured due to the diversity of thecommunities involved.
8/8/2019 Healthy CO Community
29/30
References
y Conner, R. F., & Christie, C. A. (2009). Evaluation of the ColoradoHealthy Communities Initiative: An interview with Ross Conner.In J. Fitzpatrick, C. Christie, & M. M. Mark (Eds.),Evaluation inaction: Interviews with expert evaluators (pp. 269298). LosAngeles: Sage Publications, Inc.
y Conner, R. F., & Easterling, D. (2009). The Colorado trust's healthycommunities initiative: Results and lessons for comprehensivecommunity initiatives. The Foundation Review, 1(1), 24-42.
y Davidson, E.J. (2005).Evaluation methodology basics: The nuts andbolts of sound evaluation. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage
Publications, Inc.
y Guba, Egon (1990). The Paradigm Dialog. Newbury Park, California:Sage Publications, Inc.
8/8/2019 Healthy CO Community
30/30
Questions? Comments